anyone have any idea on gun laws in the uk? i realise compared to america this it the bible belt...

Bible belt is true, but they can be dealt with.

Air rifles under 12 ft/lb don't need one
Air Rifles over 12 ft/lb require a Class 1 fire arms certificate ( This means you need to be over 18)

Shotguns:
REalativly easy to get. No age limit, I believe a six year old is the current youngest user. Pump action shotguns must be converted to hold onlt three shots.
Requires a shotgun licence.

Rifles and pistols.
Pistols are illegal in any calibre, since Dunblaine.

Rifles ae legal, in most calibres. All rifles must be single shot bolt action. The action must conform to specific rules so that it can not be loaded too quickly. Any rifle may be owned as long as it is correctly converted. Rifles such as M-16's ( Which are popular in some shooting comp's) can only have 5 shot magasines.

.22 and .223 calibre require Class 1 FAC
Anything above requires Class 2 FAC

To get the certificate, you must have a legitimate reason for holding a weapon. Shotgun is easier because, unlike the FAC, you don't need to specify exact locations that you will shoot.

Either way, all certificates require:
1) Clean criminal Record
2) House inspection by the police. This is to check security. Double glazing and good locks make it easier
3) The purchase of a certified gun safe which has a seperate section with a different lock to hold the ammunition in.

4) The safe must be fited to an exterior wall, in a concealed space, by a certified fitter. Evidence must then be shown again to the police, or a second house inspection takes place.

Specific animals, by law require minimum ammo calibres. Fox's need .223, stags .405 and deer is somewhere in the middle ( forgotten)

Travel: Guns can be carried on public transport and aircraft if the action is removed from the rest of th weapon, and the pilot/driver is notified.

Hand loading saves money, but requires another licence.

It's not easy, but I got mine within 6 weeks.

I gues a lot of the american guys ( POOP especially, won't like all the rules, but I personally agree with them. As has been seen in Hungerford and Dunblaine, as well as shootings in columbine in the US, guns are deadly, and I don't think anyone who doesn't REALLY need one should be allowed one.

But, if you think this is too strict, just thank christ you don't live in Japan.

to get a rifle licence, you must be part of an air rifle club for ten years, and shoot a minimum number of rounds a yearfor those ten. You have to pass shooting tests, and have a minimum of a 1/2 MOA before you can even apply.

And damn right as well, I say. If you can't shoot well, you shouldn't be allowed a weapon. And it's no coincidence that Japan, with it's very strict gun laws, has virtually no gun crime. The UK has very little as well. And we have tight laws. And the tighter the laws have got here, the more gun crime has fallen off.

so you mean i can get a shotgun? where do you get this kinda thing in the uk?...

how about in singapore ? the gun law are
worst...

airsoft is illegal

posession of live ammunition
= death sentence charge

posession of firearm
= death sentence charge

posession of airguns
= fine and jail...

only place which u can fire airsofts
is airgun clubs (strictly controlled)
school (every high school have a armoury
of air rifles)

firearms are fired in:
SAF gun clubs (army service man only)
army camp
police arcademy

quote:

---

Originally posted by RipSlider:
I personally agree with them. As has been seen in Hungerford and Dunblaine, as well as shootings in columbine in the US, guns are deadly, and I don't think anyone who doesn't REALLY need one should be allowed one.
.

---

That is a good british subject mantality. When are you guys going to lobby your government to let you be men instead.

I would like to see some would be monarch try to set up opperations in the US. There would be too many bullets in his body to count. You people occupied a nation, and denyed it's people economic oppratunities, put your soldiers on their streets, and took away their gun rights so that your soldiers would have nothing to fear when they went house to house violating more rights.

Oppression always goes hand in hand with gun control. In the darker years of American history we passed the National Firearms Act to keep what the Congress at the time considered to be dangerous weapons out of the hands of blacks and union members. You will recal that this was a time when the national gaurd would often be called out to break strikes. In the 40s and 50s the idea of firearms liscences became popular. Firearms liscences would be issued by local Sherifs to anybody who wanted a firearm (so long as they were middle class and white).

The basic idea behind liscences and permits is descrimination. How many people in Belfast have been issued specail permits to reload amunition compared to the number in London?

You people have created all the problems you have. If you keep a dog in a cage, deny it food (or the ability to get food), and then poke it with a stick every once in a while, you should not be supprised when it bites you. Likewise you should not be supprised when there is an action carried out against the English.

So the problem in your country is not guns, or even terrorists, it is your own evil government. They go on oppressing people and you want to be protected from retrabution with gun control laws. Yes, hide under your Queens skirt and see where that gets you.

There's no need to be a prick

That was years ago so what do any of us care most young people are anti monarchy anyway becuase the queen does nothing, also we're not told about the american civil war, like most countrys you only get taught about stuff where you win.

quote:

---

Originally posted by OniOuji:
like most countrys you only get taught about stuff where you win.

---

True.

It doesn't matter that most young people are anti monachy, they have no real say in the matter.

I am not talking about the american revolution, although the same principals apply. I suppose what I said could apply to any of Englands occupations.

If most people don't like the monarchy in england, why is it still there? Here in the US we vote in new people to embarass us every couple of years.

quote:

---

POOP especially, won't like all the rules, but I personally agree with them.

---

I see nothing wrong with your country making it's population get certificates to obtain firearms. Basically (although very basic) simular to our brady bill (NCIC background check).

Although all those limitations that your country puts on firearms, what type of firearm and it's condition, capacity, etc.. is comical to say the least.

i think .22 calibre handguns are allowed in england for sporting purposes.

i remember checking up some stuff on them on the net. and there was an article talking about .22's still being avaliable in england legally, and how this group wants to get them banned

anti gun idiots. just cos they have bodyguards and stuff.

and they havnt answered this question yet. if guns are just for killing, then why do police have guns ? they will say for self defense. since when were police regularly targetted by criminals ? rather its the civilians who have to put up with crims. so why shouldnt the civilians have the right to defend themselves ?

No, all pistols are illegal. There are some section who are trying to ban .22 air pistols.

The monachy topic is a little off subject, but I'll give my two penny's worth.

Every country has to have someone who iss top dog. In the US, it's the persident, but because of the seperation of powers, he has a good deal of say in the running of the country. However in many countries, France, India, Pakistan etc etc, the president has little or no power, like our queen, but they are still very important people, and carry out major diplomatic functions. Here in the UK, we don't have a president, so the monachy does the job. And, due to our monachy having to be non-political, it means there is much more stability compared to political appointee's. This can be seen in the constant balls up's that te French get in to.

I have to say that I really do worry about someone who believes that the Brits aren't "Men" becuase they don't have guns.
I have a gun, two in fact, but it doesn't make me proud, or feel good in any way.

The NRA in the US says that "guns don't kill people, people do". This gives me a lot of food for thought.

The Swiss do not have a large standing army. ALl swiss men are trained, and then they keep their weapons at home. But there is very little gun crime. The reason for this is their national mentality. They aren't a Shooty Shooty bang bang people, as the americans are. BEcuase there is no real gun crime, and the swiss are trusted by their leaders, there is no reason for strict gun control.

The UK shares the same sort of mentality, but we aren't so good at being rational, so we need the laws o keep us in check. Once again, there is very little gun crime. LEss than three percent of our police carry weapons, and I like it that way.

The US is different. There is a true John Wayne attitude about them. ( He's the mascot for a division of the USMC, surely you all find that scary?)
The US people as a whole are a shoot first, question later type of people. For evidence, just look at how you've dealt with the world over the last 50 years. They truely are the bully of the world. This form of policy comes from " true americans" and is a snap shoot of the mentality of the country as a whole. You have more murders in Washington and New York in one year than the Whole of the UK does in three. At a basic level, when so many people are dying, I think it's time for the stupidity to stop, and start controlling your guns.
If the US does not have it in the type of people who can control themselves and show disipline, then, personally, I think it's time that a responsible government took a course of action that MAKES people act better.

Sorry for the rant. Also note that the above is not talking about specifics. E.g. Poop and Ripinca seem highly responsible, so please do not take any of my comments as a personal critisism.

RipSlider

Having guns dosn't make you men. Not being subjects would make you men. Even if you were alowed to own guns you would still be subjects.

I agree that america is the world's bully, and has been for quite some time. We took that role over from the brits quite some time ago and it is very unfortunate.

You mention that there is lots of gun crime in Washington DC and New York. I would add L.A. and Chicago to that list. It is no coincidence that these are the places with the strictist gun control laws. I would site this as proof of what a bankrupt concept gun control is. In places that alow the concealed cary of firearms crime is much lower.

The "protect me dear Government" atitude of some gun owners turns my stomach. "Oh, protect me from my own stupidity and weekness." It is the equivilant of somebody addicted to cigarettes asking why the government alows such dangerous products to be sold.

Gun control is a form of oppression, it is the first form of oppression. The oppression that follows is always unbarably brutal and violent. It was nessasary for the rich whites to take guns out of the hands of the blacks so that they could lynch them without fear of resistance in the united states in the early part of the last century in america. Gun control is still nesasary in California to alow rouge police units like the LAPD Rampart Division to caryout their rackettering in L.A. And it was nesasary for the british government to institute gun control so that they could go about hurassing their captive subjects all over their shitty little empire.

Very well said che4rev!

the only reason we still have the monarchy is because of the money they rake in, they don't have no say about what goes on...thats Tony Blairs job (prick).

The money they rake is YOURS. They live off of your money and do nothing. The only reason you still have them around is that you have no say at all in whether or not to keep them.

[This message has been edited by rlpinca (edited 11-30-2002).]

Infact gun crime in the UK has increased, only high profile mass shootings have falled off.

hmmm, I'm worried this topic might end up getting moved, but I'll comment again.

First, the monachy's role.

Like I said before, the monach does the same job as most countries presidents, but they do it very well. For example: UK has a large sevices and arms markets. But it can be very difficult to break into forign markets. So over flies the Queen, or charlie, lots of Pomp and Ceromony, and lots of chin wagging. On a royal visit by the queen, she usually takes around 150 to 200 business men. these guys now have a good excuse to have a chat with all the government officials, and they secure a lot of contracts. For the really big stuff, the Queen has a chat to the head of state and says " Gosh, you need one of those do you? Well you should have a chat to our blokes. And I'm sure one can got you a discount" Bobs your uncle. Lots of trade, and she doesn't get anything.

As to gun control. Che4rev says that gun control is the "First Oppression". I can't agree with that. In a lawless country then maybe. My old man took me to afghanistan when I was younger. Everyone had guns. They need to defend themselves, their family, their tribe, and from the government as well as other tribes and people. In that kind of case, then I would be very pro guns, and it would be an outrage if they were banned.

But I live in the UK. I can trust my government to not shoot me in the street. I can trust the police not to break into my home, rape my wife and take away my kids. becuase I have this trust, and I know that it wont be broken I have no need of a gun. Niether does my next door nieghbour. Consequntly, when I get pissed off with my next door neighbour, the worst that is going to happen is that we'll swear at each other, maybe swing a crappy punch, then go home and curse them. No one dies. The same can't be said for a country which has a large percentage of the population armed.

As you may know, I own a rifle. I would prefer not to have one, and as it is, it is kept at a club, and locked under a dual key arrangement. The MArines are putting me through Uni, and I have to do two hours a week on the range. as the nearest military range is 60 miles away, it's easier for me to own a rifle and use it at my local range. As soon as I join up, I will have the rifle destroyed, and that will be that.

RipSlider

quote:

---

Originally posted by rlpinca:
The money they rake is YOURS. They live off of your money and do nothing. The only reason you still have them around is that you have no say at all in whether or not to keep them.

---

I have said this a million times but I will risk saying it again the royal family are invaluable for tourism, do you know how many silly Americans (No offence) I see every week in London telling me they are here to meet the queen for tea (Good luck) whilst spending all of their money here. The royal family is a symbol of national pride for most Britons, for me it�s a sign that we will never lay down, never be stepped on by anyone. The British royal family has nothing to do with anybody but the men and women who have been born and lived their lives in Britain. I for one hope to die while the monarchy are still in place.

All this arrogant bullshit about guns is getting on my tits.

Its not chance that gun laws are so strict in Britain and on average there are only 68 shootings a year in the entire UK whilst in the US where every retard and his pet budgie can own enough weapons for a small army there are over 11,000 shootings a year.

Don�t get me wrong I am not anti-guns or pro-monarchy, I am simply anti non Brits who have nothing vested in these issues trying to make us sound like little people with no rights what so ever. If the right to own guns gives the right for your people to massacre each other so regularly why do you assume we would want it, I for one do not want your evil, although if they were legal I would own a handgun I have no wish to see them legalised.

Viper 2 0 0 2

quote:

---

If the right to own guns gives the right for your people to massacre each other so regularly why do you assume we would want it

---

People will continue to massacre each other regardless of if they have a firearm available to them or not. After all we are only human.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RipSlider:
But I live in the UK. I can trust my government to not shoot me in the street. I can trust the police not to break into my home, rape my wife and take away my kids.

---

Would you have that trust if you had dark skin and lived in India during British rule? Would you believe that if you lived in Belfast now? It is easy to say that nobody needs guns when one is in the middle/rich white protected class.

I have heard on the BBC world service that there is a rising problem with skinheads in your country. I know if I was living there I would want to cary a pistol to protect my dark skined wife and child just like I do here.

It is important that we do not patronize criminals (the kind that have shaved heads as well as the kind that wear uniforms) by making ourselves weak. We have a responsibility not only to our families, but to society to make the unwarented use of force a dangerous hobby. As it stands now, there is very little risk for a criminal who chooses to extort money with violence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by I Love Poop:
People will continue to massacre each other regardless of if they have a firearm available to them or not. After all we are only human.

---

True, I remember hearing last week that two men with legally owned maximum power air rifles started shooting people somewhere in England, the difference is these victims only got non fatal injuries. The Washington sniper and his friend with their legally owned rifles managed to kill an out eleven people I believe and injure more.

I respect the right of all Americans to own a firearm; it�s in your constitution. Good for you, I just fail to see the good it has done you and more so never want to see laws so lax here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by che4rev:
Would you have that trust if you had dark skin and lived in India during British rule?

---

Or Iraq during American rule?

quote:

---

Originally posted by che4rev:
Would you believe that if you lived in Belfast now? It is easy to say that nobody needs guns when one is in the middle/rich white protected class.

---

I don�t see how you have come to the strange conclusion that making it easier for people to kill each other makes them safer. Ireland has enough guns as it is or haven�t enough people died yet American boy?

quote:

---

Originally posted by che4rev:
I have heard on the BBC world service that there is a rising problem with skinheads in your country. I know if I was living there I would want to cary a pistol to protect my dark skined wife and child just like I do here.

---

I understand your situation and support your decision under those circumstances. England is having serious asylum problems currently, it is the only target that asylum seekers have, knowing that here you will be given a home and wage for not working most see England as a gold mine. The problem is there are far to many getting here and not working or contributing to our economy that most including myself are getting extremely angry with the situation (Changed my mind legalise fucking guns). Apparently not wanting your country to be drowned by lazy fuckers with nothing to contribute to your country is racism, I think not. Europe is experiencing a rise of the far right again but England has and will continue to escape it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by che4rev:
It is important that we do not patronize criminals (the kind that have shaved heads as well as the kind that wear uniforms) by making ourselves weak. We have a responsibility not only to our families, but to society to make the unwarented use of force a dangerous hobby. As it stands now, there is very little risk for a criminal who chooses to extort money with violence.

---

Has legalising guns stopped crime in the US?

We don�t have guns in the UK and crime is lower here so what are you basing this idea on? Why does giving people the tools to kill each other make us safer?

I have also said this once before but I will risk being repetitive, in America a gun in the home is more likely to be used to shoot a family member than an outsider. Bearing this in mind how then does bringing guns into our homes make our families or society safer?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Viper2002:
Has legalising guns stopped crime in the US?

Bearing this in mind how then does bringing guns into our homes make our families or society safer?

---

Mine has stopped a neighbor from getting beaten with a pipe. He would have been killed in front of his family if I hadn't intervened. His wife and 3 kids are damn glad I had my gun. I didn't shoot the guy, but had every right to. Upon seeing the gun and some stern words he stopped and I hand cuffed him. It took the cops 6 more minutes to show up, 911(emergency number) had been called several minutes before. You cannot depend on someone else's judgement or reaction to keep you or your family safe.So the answer to your first question is YES.

Bringing guns into my home may not have kept my family safer in some people's minds. But what happens to most people if they are involved in a home invasion robbery? They get hurt or killed. If it happens to my home, the outcome might be a little bit different.

My kids (3 and 4 years old at this time) will recieve competant training on firearms safety and will be supervised when handling the guns AT ALL TIMES. As it is, the guns are safely out of their reach, yet quickly accessable to me and my wife. Most kids that are involved in accidents are never taught not to fuck with something they don't know about. It's not the gun's fault, it's the parent's or the gun owner's. A gun is simply a piece of metal(and plastic) until the trigger is pulled. There's nothing evil about it. The handler of the gun makes all of the difference

Guns remain legal in this country because they played an important role in the creation of the US. Without them, we'd still be under British control.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rlpinca:
Mine has stopped a neighbor from getting beaten with a pipe. He would have been killed in front of his family if I hadn't intervened. His wife and 3 kids are damn glad I had my gun. I didn't shoot the guy, but had every right to. Upon seeing the gun and some stern words he stopped and I hand cuffed him. It took the cops 6 more minutes to show up, 911(emergency number) had been called several minutes before. You cannot depend on someone else's judgement or reaction to keep you or your family safe.So the answer to your first question is YES.

---

You mean yes in that particular case. If this kid had had a gun instead of a pipe the situation may have been the other way around your neighbour he may have been shot dead. If the lax gun laws in the US only allowed the innocent to defend themselves then I would be in favour of making them more available here however they are more often than not used to aid the killing of innocent people.

Some people tend to assume that innocent people are only shot with illegally held firearms I very much doubt this and would guess most are not. The idea also that criminals can get any guns they want while the ban has only prevented those who would never use one anyway getting their hands on one. The truth is anyone in the US can get a legal or non-legal gun whilst the ban in the UK has made it so supply of illegal firearms is very, very restricted and the price is very high relative to the US. This has meant that only people quite deep into criminal activity and with several hundred quid to spare have any chance of getting an illegal firearm and even then it seems very few are getting any chance to use them. If your caught carrying a gun in the UK there is a good chance you will do time. Also the main reason that illegal guns are still available to criminals in the UK at all is due to the massive amounts that are brought in on ships from abroad.

Unfortunately, there's no decent statistics kept on how much crime has been deterrred by guns. If someone stops a burgular by pointing a gun at his head, then that doesn't usually get filed into any statistics. If someone shoots a rapist in the middle of fucking some 12 year old, that gets filed into the same statistics as a regular death by gun. So there's not really any accurate way to say how much crime has actually been stopped by firearms and there probably never will be.

States that have enacted reasonable shall issue concealed carry laws have reported dramatic decreases in violent crimes. Unfortunately they don't send out questionares(sp?) to potential criminals asking what has deterred them and what hasn't.

I'm not naive like some gun owners are. I realize that illegal guns probably are responsible for a small amount of crime. I also realize that most gun owners don't know shit about their guns or how to use them.

Alot of statistics that are anti gun are usually made up. There's alot of discussions on the TFL(www.thefiringline.com) that contradict anti gun quotes or statistics. Pro gun people go through the CDC which tracks all causes of death, then they go through some other records and produce accurate statistics and provide their sources so that anyone with time on their hands can double check. Usually the anti gun people have almost doubled the actual numbers. Big numbers are what gets people's attention, so they are usually only exposed to the anti gun statistics and not the actual facts.

This is a small town, but in the last year there have been around 10 shootings that I can remember. Of those 10, all were gangsters or drug dealers, none of which society will really miss. Yet these fuckers will get filed into the same category as dead doctors, teachers, college students, engineers and other important members of society.

[This message has been edited by rlpinca (edited 12-06-2002).]